starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
User talk:Hawki
See also: *Archive 01 *Archive 02 *Archive 03 *Archive 04 *Archive 05 *Archive 06 *Archive 07 *Archive 08 Opinion on Infoboxes So I spent the better part of the day on this and wanted to get some feedback on the end result since it does fundamentally change the wiki. I saw how awful our Second Great War infobox was since the portable infobox move with splitting combatants of 3+ into two rows, each with a thinner line than we use to divide pre/post conflict, so I changed it so we now display every single faction as its own row. I also removed the automatic hyphenation of a lot of our text since it was splitting words that made no sense, stuff like cerebret(new line)e happening. The issue is, in order to do this I increased the size of all infoboxes by 50px. So far it hasn't seemed to cause any issues, and isn't really noticeable, but I wanted to get your opinion since you and PsiSeveredHead have been around longer thus may notice if I broke something important. I could increase it further to make the battle articles more readable but I think the majority of articles would look weirder if I did that. So far Brood War (conflict) still looks a bit derpy but I still think it's more readable. --Subsourian (talk) 00:14, July 13, 2018 (UTC) :Messed with the images, I actually got it back to what we had before where stuff like the SC1 portraits now fill the whole image and don't downsize to a tiny portrait. Less of a thing with Remastered now being the primary image for most things, but important for cases like Black Morgan. Normal images should now fill as regular, let me know if there's anything else we should change up. Now that I'm learning I'm trying to make things look actually readable. Checked on mobile too so we shouldn't have Fandom down our throats about that again. --Subsourian (talk) 14:48, July 13, 2018 (UTC) should the remastered art replace the original starcraft art, since that is exactly a more accurate version of the universe to be the equivalent of wearing glasses with graduation and seeing in "hd"? and in some cases repesent a continuity, for example the hydralisc in starcraft was a version that evolved to the current version in starcraft 2, the protoss armor in starcraft 1 is just a variation product of the artisanal construction since two zealots with similar armor, escort to Artanis in the art co-op The original starcraft art is obsolete look to lore and got coherence between starcraft 1 and starcraft 2. for exemple you've put back the old Confederate corps art (terran victory background) and retired the remastered version--Drakolobo (talk) 05:19, September 24, 2018 (UTC) :So I went to the Barlow page today, and there's a problem. Her picture on the page is larger than the actual image. I tried to reduce the size and it didn't work. Has something happened to that infobox? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:33, September 27, 2018 (UTC) ::Just looked at Jim Raynor (StarCraft marine) and it's much worse. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:37, September 27, 2018 (UTC) :::Yeah so it was either that or have everything shrink and infoboxes that are too small not fit. Thanks to the changes they rolled out to all wikis we can no longer customize the image size in infoboxes to fit a situation when it comes to image size because of changes for mobile, so for PC we either get stretched infoboxes or boxes that are far too small. Unless we can find a way to modify the image size of individual images in portable infoboxes we either have to deal with too big or too small. If there is a way with them I sadly can't find it. --Subsourian (talk) 01:58, September 27, 2018 (UTC) Spelling Errors Bot Scan Hi Hawki, I found out about this bot on another wiki and requested we use it here. JoePlay discussed how to do so on my talk page. I think we should request this scan at least once a year. Funnily enough, this was used here back in 2013. I guess I forgot or just didn't notice it. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 23:31, January 3, 2019 (UTC) Fandom Staff Introduction New Wiki Manager introduction Hi there, I'm Bluerock, and I'm the new , taking over from PsiSeveredHead. Feel free to drop me a message if you have any questions or need any help editing the Wiki! --Bluerock (talk) 18:57, September 30, 2019 (UTC) Re: Welcome IsabHOBB (talk) 15:33, October 7, 2019 (UTC)Thank you very much for your reply, I would be very happy to have a first discussion with you as I am very new to starcraft and also to this webpage. Would it be possible to continue the conversation through my mailbox isabelbonafecarrasco@gmail.com? otherwise we can continue talking here but it would be great if you could explain me a bit how messages work through this website. Much appreciated, IsabelIsabHOBB (talk) 15:33, October 7, 2019 (UTC) No citation templates?? Hello friend. En Taro Adun and all that. I am new here and decided to improve some pages by adding some (old) information. Since you are a major contributor (admin?) i thought disturbing you. I noticed the citations are fully written by hand, like Blizzard Entertainment Starcraft, c. 1997, Terran Campaign, mission 1 and all that. Have you considered or tried to automate/simplify it with some template, as happens with other wikis? For example it would be simplified as or something, lettering the template to fill everything else automatically. I say to you al these because when I wanted to use citations I was a little upset having to copy/paste all these, not to mention that it aes the source of a page quite lousy. So, is there a reason why the verbose citations are used, or would you like some ideas on how we/you could implement citation templates? Thank you for your time reading this. CanIPlay (talk) 19:15, October 8, 2019 (UTC) Main page, local navigation and Discussions Hi Hawki, I'd just like to offer some feedback regarding the current main page and top navigation menu, and propose a couple of changes that would help improve it, given that the overwhelming majority of visitors to the wiki are exclusively readers, rather than editors. The top navigation menu is used by readers quite a lot, whereas the one here is a bit editor-centric. The links under “Starcraft Wiki” and "Tools" could be condensed under one top level item for editors, while several links that already exist as icons in the top right of the page, or within the default “Explore” menu, can be removed entirely. Regarding the main page, an expanded description of the wiki's topic at the top would be a great addition, and preferable to the very prominently-located links aimed at editors. The page also has a lot of text links organized in dense blocks – a more visual, less granular presentation of relevant content would help highlight important areas of the wiki better. In addition to these, I was also wondering how the community felt about enabling on the wiki. This is the newer cross-platform conversation feature that will ultimately replace the older wikitext-style forums and can potentially attract new visitors to the wiki. Anyway, let me know how you and the other admins feel about these proposals. Do you think these would work for the wiki? If so, I'd be happy to help implement some of these changes for you based on your feedback. Sorry that this post got a bit long, but thanks for your consideration! --Bluerock (talk) 18:20, October 14, 2019 (UTC) :Some of my thoughts: :The top bar I can tinker with it, I do agree it could use a revamp in a number of areas to make navigation easier. It's been something I've been meaning to do. :Point 2 I may need some clarification on, largely the links we feature are the big reader hubs: units, major characters, games, things that we think they'd want to see as opposed to editors. Especially since how much auxiliary stuff and offshoots there are. I could see making it more visual, but I have always been bigger on a more minimalist design. As for the purpose, we could raise it up, though I wanted more to prioritize major articles as they're usually what the SC audience comes here for. :On discussions, I've never been a fan of them on other wikis, but it's more a style thing than anything else, especially since just from experience they seem to encourage more off-topic discussion which clashes with the informative tone of the article compared to sectioning things off in the talk page. I just like the classic Wikipedia style though. If other admins want it though I won't grumble too much since that's just personal taste. --Subsourian (talk) 17:02, October 16, 2019 (UTC) ::Thanks for responding, Subsourian. Glad to hear you agree on the top nav being updated. If you need any advice on how best to structure it, this page may be of use: . ::To clarify on the editor-centric links, I was referring to the Help, Style Guides and Policies, etc. at the top, which take up a big chunk of the intro. Adding a small description of the series to that intro would help new visitors quickly understand what the subject's all about. Those prominent links could largely be removed, as most wouldn't be of interest to those only here to read articles. The description doesn't need to be very large, just a small paragraph, so that it doesn't detract from the major articles being promoted. ::For the big reader hubs, a simple image link to a relevant category or page devoted to that content area, like a portal, might be preferable. The numerous lists of text links could potentially be overwhelming to any new visitors, whereas a more visual layout would guide them to the available content better. I think this may actually be a more minimalist design to the current layout and not appear as "busy". ::Regarding Discussions, my apologies, I need to correct myself: It's actually the threaded forums (Special:Forum) that are being replaced, not the wiki-style forums (Forum:Index), which this wiki currently uses. Even so, the ones here haven't been used since last year (except for the intro messages from PsiSeveredHead and I), and Discussions can help increase wiki readership. Fandom's data actually shows that visitors who use Discussions tend to come back to wikis twice as often as someone who only looks at articles, and the informal atmosphere can encourage them to consider editing, who may find the prospect daunting at first. For discussing changes to articles more formally, Talk pages will still be available. ::Of course, the decision to implement these is entirely for the community here to make. I just thought these suggestions would be useful for making the wiki look as attractive and as easy to navigate as possible in order for the community to continue to thrive and grow. Should you need any assistance carrying these out, I'll be more than happy to help! ::--Bluerock (talk) 18:13, October 17, 2019 (UTC) Esports stuff Why does the wiki not have esports stuff? 22:44, October 17, 2019 (UTC)